Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
CSPAN 2
MSNBC 2
MSNBCW 2
CNN 1
CNNW 1
CSPAN2 1
LANGUAGE
English 10
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
. they came up with instead a very, very weak answer. harry reid caved into the republicans on this, i hate to say it. sol many democrats were saying this is going to be fine because now, we all agree that you need 60. we didn't get rid of it. they can use it. they don't have to come to the floor and talk at that talk, but it's going to work. it's going to work because republicans have greedp agreed they will filibuster for stuff that's really important. when harry reid and mitch mcconnell agree this is really worth it. damn if, we said at the time this was phony, it was not going to work, it was not going to make any change. republicans were going to abuse it. they would never abide by that agreement. two weeks ago. republicans trotted it out yesterday, put a filibuster on the nomination of chuck hagel to be our next secretary of defense, and they won. you need 60 votes to get over it. and the most they could get with the democrats and four republicans was 58 votes t he lost by one vote. harry reid ended up having to vote no. that way, by voting know he
to lead harry reid. look, we've tried 60 ways to sundown and, you know, i don't know what they got going on over at the senate, but i wish they would get together with the president, pass what they think they can pass, and then we would be glad to take a look at it. we've certainly shown -- >> you know as well as i do they're not going to be able to pass anything with 60 votes. they may be able to pass some things with 50, 52, 53 votes. they won't be able to pass anything with 60 votes, and should that be the marker on something like this? is this such an important -- >> for sure. >> -- thing it should take 60? that 41 -- >> no. i'm saying what should be the marker is the senate ought to be able to pass something. look, for better or for worse, the president -- >> so senate republicans need to get involved in this? >> no, what i'm saying is they need to work it out over there. i'm not going to tell the senate how to do their business, but they -- where br they start looking for us to lead them we've passesed two bills. the president passes nothing. the president's party controls the sena
with the nra is harry reid. i don't know if he's still a member, he was a member at one point. i wonder if you characterize the nra relationship with harry reid own the years and also talk about what you have communicated about over the past few weeks with the man who will decide on whether a gun restriction law is bill is brought to the floor of the senate. >> i'm not our lobbyist. any recent conversations with senator reid would not be really within my -- i have not personally talked to senator reid. we had a relatively friendly relationship with the senator over time. we did not endorse him for re-election. we didn't endorse his opponent either. we supported him at the primary level last time. he has been, when firearms legislation has not been the priority of his president, he's a partisan leader, she's been responsive to constituents in nevada and has been relatively friendly on second amendment issues. he's under incredible pressure right now. he's got, as any member of congress or senator does, he has his own beliefs. he has the views and the demands of his constituents on the one hand,
. rich? >> if it's such a good idea, harry reid is bring up a bill anytime he wants. two out of ten. >> jason? >> getting passed, four out of ten. >> maria? >> i'm going to say seven out ten. universal background checks. let's start with that. >> lz? >> i'm going seven out of ten as well. i agree i believe there's sensible things that are proven to be bipartisan that we can go through without saying get your guns out. >> our facebook friends. clets check. who's winning the war on guns? for matthew, gun makers and campaign fund-raisers and especially the lawyers. from justin, the left is understanding misunderstanding how pro-gun and rational the u.s. is. from david, the criminals. the law abiding americans argue who is right. keep the conversation going facebook.com or tweet me @carolcnn. "talk back" question for you, are there any hero athletes left? mine was earned in djibouti, africa, 2004. the battle of bataan, 1942. [ all ] fort benning, georgia, in 1999. [ male announcer ] usaa auto insurance is often handed down from generation to generation because it offers a superior level
and need more time. it was harry reid who called this vote as sort of an attempt to call their bluff saying this is enough, you're delaying this for no reason but i don't think this is going to help the republicans' image especially when they're going around saying we're not actually trying to stop this nomination. we're not actually filibustering, so what are they doing? i think especially for people who are sick of the sort of washington games, this isn't a good image for them. >> jake, let's talk about this break that congress is on. house speaker nancy pelosi blamed republicans for not using this time more productively. take a listen. >> they manufactured the crisis and instead of having us try to avert that crisis they go on a nine-day recess. why? ? why? people outside the congress are saying no deal, no break. >> why, jake, why? >> nancy pelosi did similar things when she had control but that simplifies a complicated issue. democrats and republicans and the president are miles apart when it comes to averting the sequester. democrats want to raise taxes. republicans say they don't wan
? >> yes. >> yes. thank you, senator. as i understand it on october 2, 2008, majority leader harry reid brought a similar bill to the floor. in fact, it was called the comprehensive iran sanctions accountability act of 2008. and he brought it to the floor in october 2, 2008. there have been media reports that you blocked unanimous consent for the consideration of that bill. are those reports true or not? >> i was one of some republican senators that did not want that vote to go forward. i voted against it in subcommittee. and the reason i did was because the bush administration did not want that bill to go forward. the reason they didn't was because they were involved in negotiations with the russians and the u.n. and security council members to put multilateral sanctions through. >> but just to be clear you did block unanimous contestant. >> i was -- con sent in >> i was part of those who did. >> would it surprise you that an earlier version of those sanctions bill was actually co- sponsored bicek taxpayer cary and clinton and obama at the time? would that surprise you? >> no. not nece
, that harry reid and his pals are supposed to pass one every year. who is doing the investigation for that? host: before we let you go, what do you think about this report that sigtarp put out specifically looking at executive pay at bail out companies? caller: of course it is disgusting. but the senate gets paid for doing nothing. i wonder where they get the idea from? -- raise an important point. anybody who tries to rip off -- guest: you raise an important point. anybody tries to rip out -- representative off the taxpayer is reprehensible. we are coming out very aggressive on anyone in that investigation. those who may be thinking about that or doing that now should take a warning by the fact we are sending people to jail. host: christy romero is special investigator for tarp -- sigtarp for short. >> a look at the automatic spending cuts scheduled to take effect march 1. half the cuts are from the pentagon. we will discuss that with ray locker. and a conversation about the use of lethal force against suspected terrorists. then we will talk about the 22 anniversary of the family and medi
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)